

Standing Committee C

[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]

Aviation (Offences) Bill

2.30 pm

Ann Widdecombe: Before I call Mr. Roy, I wish to remind members of the Committee that they should be ringless, wireless and beepless and that all devices for communication should be functioning utterly silently or not at all.

Clause 1 - Arrest without warrant

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Frank Roy: I thank members of the Committee for giving up their time for this important Bill. I also thank you, Miss Widdecombe, not least for the advice that you were good enough to give me some moments ago.
Disruptive passenger behaviour, or air rage as it is commonly known in this country, is a serious offence. It could affect anyone who flies in an aircraft. Figures show a 400 per cent. increase in air rage incidents throughout the world since 1985. In the past year, there have been 1,055 incidents in the United Kingdom.
 The lively debate on Second Reading showed how much interest there is in the subject. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) gave details of a personal experience of an air rage incident. It was very disturbing, if only for the fact that, apart from witnessing disruptive behaviour, everyone must bear in mind that it took place in an aeroplane travelling at 500 mph, 30,000 ft up.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of developing policy to tackle disruptive passenger behaviour on aircraft. The law dealing with such offences is among the most comprehensive in the world. The Bill will improve the enforcement of the law. It deals with specific recommendations made by the police and is supported by the entire aviation community.
 On Second Reading, I was heartened by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who described the measure as
"a model private Member's Bill.''—[Official Report , 7 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 591.] 
 Praise indeed. The Bill is succinct, narrowly focused and, I hope, uncontroversial. In addition to usual criminal law, which also applies on board UK-registered aircraft, several specific offences in UK law relate to disruptive passenger behaviour. Those offences under the Air Navigation Order 2000 are endangering the safety of an aircraft, being drunk on an aircraft, smoking when it is prohibited on an aircraft, disobeying a lawful command by the commander of an aircraft and acting in a disruptive manner, which includes interfering with the cabin crew in the course of their important duty.
None of those offences carries a statutory power of arrest. Without a warrant, the policy may arrest suspects only if they are likely to injure themselves or others, or if their identity cannot be established, which in this day and age is unlikely. Obviously, those who travel on aircraft that travel between countries will have passports. Even on domestic flights, customers are required to have some form of identification. In most cases, the police are restricted to taking a name and address, and reporting the offender for summons.
 The lack of powers to detain suspects creates several practical problems. It means that the police are unable to search, fingerprint or question suspects, or to take witness statements. For charges to be made, the police must travel to the suspect's address. For example, the suspect may live in London and the police may have to travel the length and breadth of the country to, say, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow or Edinburgh to speak to witnesses. That is a great waste of valuable police time. No doubt hon. Members who represent constituencies with airports could back up that assertion with many examples that they have received from their local police force.
On Second Reading, I gave an example of a football charter flight going from Vigo to Glasgow in November that had to land at Cardiff because of disruptive behaviour. The police in Cardiff interviewed as many people as possible. The suspects then went home to Glasgow. The Cardiff police then had to travel from one end of the United Kingdom to the other to take statements and, only a few weeks ago, four of those gentlemen were found guilty. That shows how much time is wasted to investigate such an incident. It must also have been extremely costly to the Cardiff police.
 In order to give the police a power of arrest without a warrant, the alleged offence committed must be classified in law as an arrestable offence. The effect of clause 1 is to thus classify offences relating to drunken or disruptive behaviour.
Subsection (1) provides for certain offences to be inserted after paragraph 11 of schedule 1A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—commonly known as PACE—which applies in England and Wales. The intention behind the wording of the clause is to refer to two specific offences in the Air Navigation Order: first, acting in a disruptive manner, as per article 68; and secondly, drunkenness in an aircraft, as per article 65. Section 24(1) of PACE defines an arrestable offence generally as any offence for which the sentence is fixed by law. All offences listed in schedule 1A to PACE are classified as arrestable.
 As the maximum penalty for the air rage offences cited is two years imprisonment, at present the police would not normally have powers of arrest. Their insertion in schedule 1A will therefore have the effect of making the offences arrestable. In order to make the offences arrestable in Northern Ireland, subsection (2) inserts the same offences at the end of article 26(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which is equivalent to schedule 1A of PACE.
Subsection (3) inserts an equivalent provision for Scotland after section 82(3) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As PACE does not apply in Scotland, the Act was considered the appropriate place to insert the offences, given that it already contains similar provisions relating to aviation security offences. There is a reserved mark in the measure for not being devolved, which is why we can put it in the Bill.

Richard Bacon: It is a great pleasure to speak in the Committee under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, and to support the Bill. It is also a great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary. He and I have seen a lot of each other in the past few weeks because of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. As a result of that, we all know the thoroughness—
2.39 pm 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.52 pm 
 On resuming—

Richard Bacon: I was recalling to the attention of the Committee—and particularly the Under-Secretary—the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in her attention to legislative matters before the House. He knows the close forensic detail in which she scrutinised the Railways and Transport Safety Bill and this private Member's Bill—a forensic detail that I can only describe as exhaustive.
 Many of the points that I wished to raise have been covered by my hon. Friend on Second Reading, but I should like to raise a couple of points with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). First, I congratulate him on the Bill. It puts right a serious omission in the law because, as he said, an aircraft is a very dangerous place, and it is odd that a range of what are offences in other places, on land or sea, are not arrestable without a warrant in an aircraft.
It is right that the Bill should make provision for prohibiting specified behaviour by a person in an aircraft towards, or in relation to, a member of the crew, and for prohibiting a passenger from being drunk in an aircraft. In those unusual circumstances on an aircraft, it is wrong that there should be any need for an arrest warrant, or for the police to travel to a suspect's house. We support the clause.
 I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address two points that were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York on Second Reading. First, there is the question of those passengers who are drunk or have been drinking before boarding the plane, as there is nothing in the Bill that relates to them or their condition. Secondly, there are people, particularly on the cheapo charter flights going to the Mediterranean, who are not drunk when boarding the plane, but who consume alcohol that they have purchased privately, sometimes out of sight of the cabin crew. My hon. Friend expressed those concerns on Second Reading and we would be grateful for an assurance on that subject.
With those minor provisos, it gives me pleasure to support the clause.
 Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): I, too, am delighted to support the clause and the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on introducing the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon); the clause corrects an oversight.
 More people are travelling by air and air passenger numbers are up, despite a temporary setback at the moment, for obvious reasons; there is also a proliferation of much cheaper flights, which is to be welcomed. We must, therefore, ensure that the legislation is in place to protect the passengers, some of whom will be infrequent airline passengers, and the cabin crew, whom I believe react to most circumstances with professionalism and dedication.
 New paragraph 11A seems to protect a member of the crew. In fact, new paragraph 11A(a) relates to:
 "a provision which prohibits specified behaviour by a person in an aircraft towards or in relation to a member of the crew, or''— 
 in new paragraph 11A(b)—
 "a provision which prohibits a person being drunk in an aircraft, in so far as it applies to passengers.'' 
 Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify that. It is all very well protecting the crew, but what are his views on protecting passengers? Having purchased a ticket, passengers have as much right to be protected under the law as a member of the crew. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether a passenger might sometimes need protection from a crew member? Unfortunately, it is not unknown for a crew member to be intoxicated or belligerent to passengers, and passengers should have an equal right to be protected from the crew, if that were necessary.
 We covered most of the ground on Second Reading, but it is worth bearing in mind the different reactions that some people have to alcohol. I know people who become nervous when travelling; they get into an agitated state and one drink could perhaps tip them over. There are those who are on medication, for whom one drink could have disastrous consequences. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has thought about how the law could be further widened to ensure that people on medication declare that fact to the cabin crew before purchasing or receiving any alcohol, which might have an adverse effect.
 I suspect that most airlines and crew members would welcome the measures and, if we get the legislation right, most passengers would welcome it too.

Sandra Osborne: I also welcome the Bill and the clause. Air safety is close to my heart because, as the Minister is aware, the Scottish air traffic control centre is located in my constituency—indeed, I hope that the new Scottish air traffic control system will also be located there soon—and Glasgow Prestwick airport is notable for the many low-cost flights that it has attracted in recent years.
 Hon. Members have inferred that low-cost flights may have a particular problem with air rage. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw is correct; so-called air rage has come to the fore in recent years and it has emerged as a substantial potential threat to air safety. I have consulted the management at Glasgow Prestwick airport and I emphasise that although air rage is a problem, it is not a common, everyday occurrence. It is not any more noticeable on the low-cost airlines than it is on other airlines. In fact, it could be argued that charter flights are more of a problem in that regard. Notwithstanding that, the management at Glasgow Prestwick airport recognise the problem and strongly support the Bill. They do so principally because they believe that it is absolutely essential that the police have the powers necessary to deal with the problem when it arises, and are able to arrest where appropriate. Obviously, they do not have the power at the moment to deal with such antisocial behaviour as far as air travel is concerned. 
 I also believe that there is a deterrence aspect to the Bill. If people believe that the police are not in a position to deal with the matter appropriately, there is obviously little deterrence in place. With those short comments, Miss Widdecombe, I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend.
 3 pm

Alan Reid: I want to say a few words to congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on promoting this badly needed and well thought-out Bill. Air rage is one of those modern expressions but, as has been said, it would be wrong to assume that it is widespread. There are only a few occurrences every year but because of the nature of being in an aircraft at several thousand feet, an incident or threat of violence of any kind obviously has extremely serious potential consequences. It is important that there is a strong deterrent against any passenger contemplating any such activity. The hon. Gentleman has done well to introduce the Bill to plug a gap in the law because that gap, as he outlined in his opening speech, can cause enormous practical difficulties for the police. I fully support the Bill.

Margaret Moran: I, too, heap praise on my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for his wisdom in promoting this important Bill, which will block a loophole that has been outstanding for some time. The issue affects many of my constituents in Luton, South, where London Luton airport is commonly associated with not only low-cost flights, but many charter flights. A large number of my constituents work in the airline industry and are subject to so-called air rage incidents. The Bill will be welcome in offering a measure of protection to them, which may not have been sufficiently provided in the past.
 It is not simply an issue for low-cost airlines; it is important that we put that on record. There is an image of low-cost airlines being the bucket shop of the world, full of yobs and hooligans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Excepting myself, I know that many hon. Members use low-cost airlines flying from my constituency, and they are most welcome. I would not classify them as likely to be the subject of hooliganism or air rage. The Minister is indicating that Conservative Members might be; I am sure that that is not the case.
 The problem affects all classes of airline, although it is not a widespread problem. It is, however, an important one. It is particularly important that we do not overestimate the extent of the problem, but we understand that it damages the airline industry because of the perception that it is a frequent occurrence, and because it increases the fear of flying. Given that the aviation industry at the moment is under a great deal of pressure—particularly since 11 September—and margins for airlines are extremely slim, it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that we support our aviation industry and our airlines. The Bill is a significant and important step in that direction.
 One issue that I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw is that the Bill can only fall within the jurisdiction over which we have purview in this country. Other European countries are often the recipients of the problem. Spain is a particular, although not exclusive, example. I remember being on a flight to Ayia Napa in Cyprus for what I thought was likely to be a restful holiday, although it turned out otherwise. There were complaints from many who had been on a flight that had come in earlier than ours of something approaching an air rage incident. The authorities in the European countries concerned have jurisdiction in such cases and have to deal with the problem. I seek clarification from my hon. Friend on how we can work with other European countries to ensure that we have a seamless approach and that jurisdiction, and the enforcement of this legislation, are absolutely clear.

David Jamieson: May I say what a delight it is to be sitting here under your careful chairmanship this afternoon, Miss Widdecombe? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on his private Member's Bill. It is very unusual that such Bills reach Committee and I congratulate him on getting so far.
 When my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) mentioned that certain hon. Members may be travelling on low-cost flights and I indicated Opposition Members, I was suggesting only that those Members might have constituents who had been affected by the problem. I was certainly not trying to suggest that Opposition Members might in any way have been involved in such incidents.

Richard Bacon: The Minister may care to know that I spent 36 hours on an aeroplane with the hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on a trip to and from the Falkland Islands. If the Minister cares to see me afterwards, I can tell him something about behaviour on aircraft.

David Jamieson: That sounds like something that would be better kept off the record.
 The Government welcome the Bill. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said about its having cross-party support in the House and the support of the industry. My Department chairs a working group on disruptive passengers, which includes representatives of the Civil Aviation Authority, the police, the Home Office, the airlines and unions. That group has long endorsed the need for such legislation, as originally recommended in a report by the United Kingdom airports police commanders group. Although the Bill's measures are modest, which befits private Member's legislation, they will be helpful in allowing the police more effectively to prosecute serious incidents of disruptive behaviour, albeit, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, they are extremely rare. When they do happen, they are seriously disruptive and disturbing to people on an aeroplane and could lead to a catastrophic situation.
 I speak in support of not only the clause but the Bill. I wish it a fair passage.

Frank Roy: I am grateful for the Government's support for the Bill. As I have said, it is important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that what we are discussing is not an everyday occurrence, but it needs to happen only once to have a catastrophic effect on many passengers. I accept that there are not such occurrences every day, but during the past 12 months there have been 1,055 incidents, 55 per cent. of which were deemed by the Civil Aviation Authority to be serious. We might not see them every day, but such incidents do happen.
 I shall not go into the long air journey that the hon. Member for South Norfolk and I spent returning from the Falkland Islands, but I shall address his points on people with alcohol boarding an aircraft and people being drunk before they get on a flight. The problem is not possession of alcohol, but drunken behaviour. People often buy duty-free drink if they are going outwith Europe, and that has not been a great problem. People in the industry have said that bringing drink on is not really the problem. The problem is when a person gets drunk before they go on the plane.
 I want to make it clear that this is not an anti-alcohol Bill. I am teetotal, and I asked someone in the industry about the effect of alcohol on those flying. He told me that having a whisky or a couple of halves or glasses of wine before getting on the plane can have a good effect. It can calm a person down. I would not like to take that pleasure away. Also, it is nice for those on a flight to sit back, relax and have a drink after taking off, knowing that they are going on holiday. That is acceptable—and so it should be. We should be able to enjoy ourselves on a flight. I do not want to sound as though I am against alcohol.
 However, the Bill is against alcohol misuse; that is what being drunk is. A person who is drunk affects the enjoyment of anyone sitting beside them. It can be embarrassing for someone to sit near a drunk person. They do not feel good because they are wary, although that is not to say that the drunk person will start fighting all over the place. However, neither person really enjoys the experience.
 I can tell the hon. Member for South Norfolk that if someone is drunk and about to go on a flight, companies have the right to stop them going on board, and they should use it. I spoke earlier about football specials. Hon. Members know that I have a great love of football and have been on many specials, and I have seen people turned away just as they are getting on the plane. They might say, "Wait a wee minute, I've got my ticket. I'm going to such-and-such." They are quite rightly told that they are not, because they are not in a fit state of mind. Companies have powers to stop anyone entering a plane while drunk.
 I would like to put on record that airport authorities also have some responsibility. I spoke to BAA plc about that. I was told by BAA of an instance of a sporting weekend in Glasgow when passengers tried to force BAA to open the bar. That is fine, but it was 5.20 in the morning. There were 200 people having a go at the duty manager, saying, "Get this bar open; you have passengers."That was not likely to happen. The airport authorities have responsibilities just as the aircraft company do. I used to be a barman when I was a student, and it was my responsibility not to serve someone who was drunk. British Airways, British Midland Airways, Air 2000 and so on have responsibility not to sell drink to people who are drunk. They have been told repeatedly that they have a part to play in the matter. I hope that they remember that, and that they will make it harder for people to get drunk.
 The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) raised some important points about passenger and cabin crew protection. The Bill does not bring in new offences; it upgrades existing offences. At the moment, there is no specific offence in the Air Navigation Order 2000 relating to behaviour towards passengers or crew. That is where the change would need to be made. Obviously, one would expect that if a member of the cabin crew acted badly towards one of the passengers they would lose their job. To create such an offence, we would need to do so under the Air Navigation Order, which sets out explicitly the types of offence that can occur.
 On the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, the International Civil Aviation Organisation has adopted a resolution urging all contracting states to enact laws as soon as possible to deal with disruptive passengers on board. That should exactly cover my hon. Friend's points.
 Question put and agreed to.
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Penalties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
 3.15 pm

Frank Roy: This clause is much more straightforward than the previous one. In essence, it allows for an increase in the penalty from two years to five years for the offence of endangering the safety of an aircraft or a person in an aircraft.
 The air navigation order in which the disruptive passenger offences are set out is subsidiary legislation to the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The powers set out in section 61(2) of that Act restrict the penalty to two years for conviction on indictment of such an offence. It is clear to me—and, I am sure, to other Committee members—that two years is not a sufficient penalty for the serious offence of endangering the safety of an aircraft: two years for endangering an aircraft that could have 400 people on board is an absurdity in this day and age. This clause amends that Act to raise the maximum penalty for this offence to five years, thereby allowing a subsequent change to the relevant air navigation order.
 Raising the maximum penalty to five years carries the advantage of making the offence automatically arrestable, in accordance with section 24(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and equivalent provisions in Northern Ireland. Referring back to the example that I gave earlier of the flight from Vigo to Glasgow that went to Cardiff, the offence would have been automatically arrestable. However, as there is no equivalent provision in Scotland, the offence would not have been automatically arrestable in Glasgow. In Scotland, a police constable has a common law power of arrest, which has to be justified depending on the circumstances in a particular case. In practice it may be possible to justify arrests for a serious offence of this nature, but I am advised that it would be far preferable, for legal certainty, to create a power of arrest in statute. Therefore, I give notice that I intend to rectify that by tabling on Report a small amendment to the Bill to make this offence arrestable in Scotland for when it becomes arrestable in the rest of the UK. It would have been much more advantageous if that had been done earlier, but it has taken a bit longer because of devolution and reserved powers and so on. This is an important part of the Bill, and we need to ensure that things are not only done but done properly. [Interruption.]

Hugo Swire: If I was on a flight, under the hon. Gentleman's new provision I would almost certainly have got five years for covering my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in a liquid that could have been alcohol.
 I support the clause. It addresses something that, if it is not an oversight, has been long overdue for correction. How can that law be limited to a maximum sentence of two years when, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, endangering an aircraft can now mean endangering the lives of in excess of 200 or 300 people?
 I am heartened that at a later stage the hon. Gentleman will table an amendment to do away with the anomaly that applies in Scotland. It is entirely iniquitous that an offence committed on a flight from Manchester to Glasgow would be arrestable at one moment and seconds later it would not be. Doing away with that anomaly is to be welcomed, and I will have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
 As we are getting our own house in order—or our own skies in order—I wonder what is the current legislation on an international basis, within Europe as well as in the wider world. Flights, as we know, go everywhere. Other countries do not have similar legislation, so I would welcome the Minister's views on whether, when the Bill is enacted, such good practice could be exported to those countries.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Miss Widdecombe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on introducing the Bill. I wanted to speak on Second Reading but was unable to; I might have said what I am about to say at that time. I want to make some important points.
 The Bill dovetails nicely with the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, which received a Third Reading on Monday following a debate. I was a member of the Standing Committee of the Bill. We dealt with drunkenness among staff and aircrew, while this Bill deals with problems with passengers. It is right that they should be dealt with closely together. I have already regaled my colleagues on that Committee with my experience of travelling back from Plovdiv 15 years ago, when all the aircrew drank vodka all the way to Gatwick—a terrifying experience. I thought at the time that we should have had some laws to deal with such behaviour, let alone to deal with passengers.
 Most people who travel by aircraft are perfectly peaceful, well behaved and law abiding, and go about their holiday or whatever in a relaxed way. We are dealing with a small number of people who sometimes have personal problems relating to alcohol or personality traits. A difficult minority of people cause such problems.
 In the previous Parliament—before my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) became Under-Secretary of State for Transport—I was in correspondence with other Ministers in the Department about the problem of air rage. I put it to them at the time that we should introduce a penalty forbidding people to fly. Prison sentences and fines are well enough, but not being able to fly—taking away a person's licence for a prolonged period, and perhaps for life for a second offence—would be a serious deterrent.
 I put that case. The only argument that came back was from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. She made the point that international co-operation would be needed. It might be easy to do that on flights from Gatwick to Edinburgh or Luton to Glasgow, but on flights from Plovdiv to somewhere else it would be more difficult. International agreement would be necessary. I believe that bans on flying for passengers who seriously misbehave should be discussed, and I ask the Minister to consider that for future legislation, if not for the Bill.
 Mention has been made of hon. Members flying and behaving themselves. Some years ago, I spent a long flight with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. Luton is rather over-represented on the Committee. No one could have been more peaceful than we were. However, I have flown with an hon. Member who was less well-behaved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] It was many years ago and I cannot remember the name. The behaviour was well short of an offence, but it caused stress. Stress is a serious problem on an aircraft. There are children, the elderly, people who have not flown very much or are frightened of flying. If they see aggression of any kind, such as a shouting argument, that can cause problems that have to be addressed seriously. We are not all relaxed and laid back about flying at 500 mph at 35,000 ft. Some of us take it in our stride, but others do not, and they get agitated.
 On another occasion, I travelled with a young man in our party—not an hon. Member—on a very long flight. I imbibe myself, but he was drinking excessively and became very agitated to the point that I thought that he might commit an aggressive act. As it happened, he was sitting next to me, and I spent the night—it was a night flight—talking him down. He told me his life story, which had a certain amount of tragedy in it, that being one reason why he was so agitated, and he calmed down over a period of time. I did not get any sleep but I felt that I was helping him out with his problems. People can get very agitated on flights. Some get to the point where they become aggressive.
 Mention has been made of ordinary people and the average working person going on a holiday flight, but we have heard stories recently of wealthy pop stars misbehaving extremely badly on aircraft, although they might get away with it in the subsequent court case. Abusive pop stars with plenty of money are not going to worry about fines, because they are such wealthy people that they can just click their fingers and £1 million appears. They might worry about prison sentences at the end of the day; but I think that it would affect such people very much if the possibility of their ever flying again were threatened. Their livelihood and way of life would be seriously affected by that.
 I have seen in restaurants, trains and elsewhere that it can be the wealthy who misbehave, not ordinary people. The wealthy are, perhaps, used to ordering people about and getting their own way because they have money and power. Perhaps we should be looking at deterring those people. They would be seriously deterred if they were banned from flying. We might suggest a scale of penalties, such as five years for a first offence, 20 years and then a lifetime ban—although I hope that it would not ever get to that. A series of penalties, which involved banning people from flying by stamping their passport, could quite easily be arranged within the European Union and with other developed countries, such as the United States. It would be harder to arrange with some smaller and poorer countries, or with countries where the sort of regulations that we are used to are less common.
 We have to look at the matter seriously because it is very frightening when someone starts to get aggressive on an aircraft. We cannot pull the communication cord and stop the train; we cannot stop the bus and ask for people to get off. An aircraft is in mid-air, flying at high speed, and nothing can be done until it can find a place to land and the person can be dealt with. If people who misbehave like that know that they might be banned from flying, possibly for life, I think that they would either not fly or not behave in that way. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think for the future about slightly higher penalties than those in the Bill. The Bill is excellent as far as it goes, but I should like to see stronger penalties and I hope that consideration will be given to that in due course.

David Jamieson: Although, as I said earlier, the incidents that we are talking about today are rare, if they do occur the offence is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, very serious and warrants the higher penalty. In a recent case, the judge who passed judgment on the person found guilty said that he would have given a higher sentence had that been available. We therefore agree with the police recommendation that the five-year maximum penalty is appropriate.
 I thank my hon. Friend for giving me prior notice of an amendment that he may want to table. It sounds as if, in principle, we would support it. We look forward to seeing it so that we can incorporate it sensibly into the Bill.
 The hon. Member for East Devon, who almost caused disruptive behaviour in a Committee by soaking the hon. Member for Newark when he stood up to speak, asked about passengers on foreign airlines. The only circumstance in which we would have jurisdiction there would be when the United Kingdom was the next state in which the plane landed. We would have some jurisdiction then. We also have jurisdiction over UK-registered aircraft, wherever they are.
 The International Civil Aviation Organisation has passed a resolution urging states to enact more to deal with disruptive passengers. Like all aviation and shipping matters, these matters must be dealt with internationally if they are to be dealt with effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) almost answered his own question in his opening remarks. He said that we need international agreement to get a ban on the use of aircraft by people who are seriously disruptive. I would be quite happy for those people to fly once more—on a one-way ticket out of the country, and be gone for ever. Notwithstanding that, what he said makes sense. We in this country lead the world on such issues and we must keep an eye on the matter. We must also consider whether, if this is a growing problem and we feel that the laws in this and other countries have not been adequate and sufficient to deal with the situation, we can make a further international agreement at ICAO. The issue would be a candidate for discussion at ICAO in future, probably prompted by us.
 3.30 pm

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister clarify something that was discussed on Second Reading? Do individual airlines have the right to ban passengers who have been abusive, or who have contravened an airline directive, from their flights for an unspecified period?

David Jamieson: Yes, indeed. That is a good point. If people have been disruptive in the past, airlines may ban them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, if a person is acting in a disruptive, strange or drunken way before they board, the airlines have the power and the right to stop them boarding. Perhaps it might be advantageous if some of the companies took up that option and used that power a little more often to narrow the scope for trouble being caused by people who are seriously disruptive on aircraft.
 I hope that clause 2 receives the Committee's support.
 Mr. Roy: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North put forward some excellent examples of air rage. During his contribution I wrote the words, "Vodka all the way to Gatwick". That certainly conjured up some horrific images.
 The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the problem is not just confined to one kind, or class, of aircraft. In my naivety, at the start, I asked companies specifically, "Is this more or less a problem, not so much with low-cost airlines, but with chartered airlines going to Ibiza?"—the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned those on Second Reading. I was told clearly that it was not. The companies said that there was just as good a chance of disruptive behaviour by people travelling first class as there was by people in economy class. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South and for Ayr also stated that this was no more a low-cost airline problem than it was anyone else's. We should remember that the problem is faced throughout the airline industry.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North argued for a blacklist. I have brought that idea up with various companies. British Airways, for example, has a yellow and red card system on its flights. A yellow card is more or less a note to say, "Look, calm down a bit." However, if a person were shown the red card, there would be serious consequences; they would be reported to the authorities on landing and the airline would also try to ensure that that person did not fly with it again. British Airways has been speaking to other companies about the blacklist idea.
 Question put and agreed to.
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Frank Roy: The clause gives a definite date from which the Act will begin to operate.
 Question put and agreed to.
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Frank Roy: The clause states that the Act extends to Northern Ireland.
 Question put and agreed to.
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Bill to be reported, without amendment.
 Committee rose at twenty-five minutes to Four o'clock.